Who is the greatest rider of all-time



Who is the greatest rider of all-time

  • Bernard Hinault

    Votes: 10 1.0%
  • Fausto Coppi

    Votes: 24 2.5%
  • Francesco Moser

    Votes: 28 2.9%
  • Eddy Merckx

    Votes: 2 0.2%
  • Gino Bartali

    Votes: 604 63.1%
  • Luison Bobet

    Votes: 4 0.4%
  • Felice Gimondi

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Rik Van Looy

    Votes: 2 0.2%
  • Lance Armstrong

    Votes: 2 0.2%
  • Miguel Indurain

    Votes: 280 29.3%

  • Total voters
    957
meehs said:
LOL! Sounds like maybe I struck a nerve with you, huh Saucy?
I don't disagree so much what you said in your post which is all very true, but rather with the subject matter i.e. ignorance of history as an excuse for ill-informed opinions. Yes this strikes a nerve with me. Although it doesn't take much to get me riled up even in the best of circumstances.
 
gntlmn said:
First of all, I voted for Merckx. He is, in my opinion, the greatest rider of all time.

Dear fellow, why didn't you say so?!! Why am I arguing with you, then? You are clearly a brilliant individual since you agree with me. :D

From your posts it appeared that you were diminishing Merckx's accomplishments.

I agree that history must be viewed in context. And if there were a debate about two riders with similar palmares, then I suppose that one could argue that certain circumstances lent itself to greatness more than others. But in this case Merckx's palmares are so superior to Armstrong's that there is no debate really.

I don't really buy into your logic about financial necessity. So what if Merckx needed the money more than Lance and therefore had to race more? To me, what matters is that he raced and won. Whether he did this for money, ego, chicks, whatever, is not really important.

YOu seem to be saying that the TDF was somehow substandard in years past because riders were racing in so many events? To me this is not a good argument since all the other riders Merckx was racing against were presumably experiencing the same level of fatigue.

I agree with you that racing is different today. The elite riders are not bothering to race in the Giro, Vuelta and WC's so you are right that it is a different time now and many people are not measuring accomplishment by the results of these races. Personally, I think its unfortunate. But just because the racing climate has changed does not mean that I should allow Armstrong a pass for skipping on these events. If he wants to change my opinion he has to win these events (many times) for him to be in Merckx's league.
 
Saucy said:
Dear fellow, why didn't you say so?!! Why am I arguing with you, then? You are clearly a brilliant individual since you agree with me. :D

From your posts it appeared that you were diminishing Merckx's accomplishments.

I agree that history must be viewed in context. And if there were a debate about two riders with similar palmares, then I suppose that one could argue that certain circumstances lent itself to greatness more than others. But in this case Merckx's palmares are so superior to Armstrong's that there is no debate really.

I don't really buy into your logic about financial necessity. So what if Merckx needed the money more than Lance and therefore had to race more? To me, what matters is that he raced and won. Whether he did this for money, ego, chicks, whatever, is not really important.

YOu seem to be saying that the TDF was somehow substandard in years past because riders were racing in so many events? To me this is not a good argument since all the other riders Merckx was racing against were presumably experiencing the same level of fatigue.

I agree with you that racing is different today. The elite riders are not bothering to race in the Giro, Vuelta and WC's so you are right that it is a different time now and many people are not measuring accomplishment by the results of these races. Personally, I think its unfortunate. But just because the racing climate has changed does not mean that I should allow Armstrong a pass for skipping on these events. If he wants to change my opinion he has to win these events (many times) for him to be in Merckx's league.

I don't think I made myself quite clear enough. Back in Merckx time, it was hard to even earn enough to eat let alone optimize all the conditions you can in order to win. Merckx made enough to live. I'd like to know what the numbers are on that. But let's say you're Merckx in his time. How do you insure that you will continue to dominate? Well, many have said that he rode all those other races to bring more money to the organizers by appearing, given that spectators are more likely to watch a champion than those that aren't well known.

I was thinking of a different angle today. If the other riders had hardly enough money to live on, it is a good bet to try to keep money out of their pockets by winning every single race you can. Instead of money going into theirs, it goes into yours. In effect, you starve them out. This sounds rather Macchiavelian, but it's the truth. If a rider doesn't win, he doesn't get any winnings. Furthermore, he cannot negotiate a good salary. So Merckx' constant appearances may not have been all that altruistic. I don't blame him for such a strategy. But if you think about it, it makes sense. If you can keep winning, then the other riders will continue to have to keep riding many races in order to win enough money to survive. If they're lucky now and then, they win. Merckx only gave up 2 out of 3 races he was in, winning the other 1 out of 3. That doesn't give very good odds to the others.

Times aren't so tough now. With the worst paid riders in the Tour de France earning only $20,000 a year, this is still enough to pay for food and the bare necessities that the sponsor may not provide. They wouldn't necessarily have to race every single race they could. This was not the case earlier on. If you didn't win, I think you had to work somehow in occupations other than riding in order to survive unless your family supported you or you happened to have your own money. Any kind of other job would have taken a big chunk out of your biking potential. You wouldn't have been able to plan your whole life around cycling the way they do now.

You far underestimate the difference in the nature of the races nowadays. It's become a specialist sport. They peak according to the calendar. Those that ignore that reality are doomed for failure. There aren't any year round dominators anymore simply because the competitive landscape has changed. The riders no longer have to race to survive. They choose their races, and race to win.
 
GearGrinder said:
i cant tell you as its all before my time:) . Why doesent lance and ullrich try to beat the world hour record? thats a good test. not for a climber though:)

Very simple:
Lance and Ulrich are team oriented and ride to win,hence, breaking records is risky, whereas Eddie rides to win plus kick asses big time. Eddie is more spectacular and hence prefered, but that does not make Eddie better than these guys. I prefer Eddie i like his style as the greatest, but Lance after winning his 6th Tour De France shows a very smart, powerful and now should be considered as his successor.
Unless some smart guy can prove else.
desmondhs.
 
desmondhs said:
Very simple:
Lance and Ulrich are team oriented and ride to win,hence, breaking records is risky, whereas Eddie rides to win plus kick asses big time. Eddie is more spectacular and hence prefered, but that does not make Eddie better than these guys. I prefer Eddie i like his style as the greatest, but Lance after winning his 6th Tour De France shows a very smart, powerful and now should be considered as his successor.
Unless some smart guy can prove else.
desmondhs.

Throw out all the **** about breaking records and you're still left with Merckx winning practically any race he really wanted to. He didn't have to 'peak' at the right time each season to win one grand tour. If he did, he sure as hell 'peaked' several times a season. I don't see how anyone can believe that winning 6 TDFs is more impressive than winning 5 TDFs as well as all the punishing classics he won. Let's throw in 5 Tour of Italy wins and I think he also won the Vuelta as well.

I don't think you can compare a smart gifted rider like Armstrong who picks and chooses his opportunities based on the probability of success with Eddy Merckx who basically went out and said "hey; I'll just go out and race all year long" and end up beating the **** out of everyone.

Is Armstrong the best rider ever? Maybe someday. But now as a TDF specialist, he's not even the 3rd best ever.
 
Saucy said:
How about Merckx as Reinhold Messner, summiting all the 20,000'ers solo and without supplemental oxygen?

LA = Mt. Kilimanjaro. Level of fame disproportionate to its accomplishments and a continent apart from the greats (Himalayas).

I'd go with the Messner analogy and apply it to Merckx.
Greatness is a word that is used very liberally these days.
For me, Eddy's accomplishments are simply unfathomable.
He is simple the greatest ever - in any era, under any conditions.
What he would achieve today - well that is speculation but I would suggest that he would still win everything in sight.
(Given that there was no financial pressure to win - he would still win because that is the nature of this particualr beast).

No one - NO ONE ! - is even close to the mans achievements.

I have compiled some statistics on the mans record and using weighted averages, tried to bring some equivalence to riders from different eras.
Unfortunately, Armstrong doesn't even figure to be honest.

Hinault - who ranks second on the all time list has said it, Merckx was/is/will be the greatest.
No less a cyclist than Sean Kelly himself has told me that EM is, in his opinion,
the greatest.
Both mens words are good enough for me.

Bravo Eddie !
 
limerickman said:
I'd go with the Messner analogy and apply it to Merckx.
Greatness is a word that is used very liberally these days.
For me, Eddy's accomplishments are simply unfathomable.
He is simple the greatest ever - in any era, under any conditions.
What he would achieve today - well that is speculation but I would suggest that he would still win everything in sight.
(Given that there was no financial pressure to win - he would still win because that is the nature of this particualr beast).

No one - NO ONE ! - is even close to the mans achievements.

I have compiled some statistics on the mans record and using weighted averages, tried to bring some equivalence to riders from different eras.
Unfortunately, Armstrong doesn't even figure to be honest.

Hinault - who ranks second on the all time list has said it, Merckx was/is/will be the greatest.
No less a cyclist than Sean Kelly himself has told me that EM is, in his opinion,
the greatest.
Both mens words are good enough for me.

Bravo Eddie !

Nobody is going to sum it up better than you just did!
 
Merckx in my opinion may be the best KNOWN rider(road) because he did so many tours and competitions while Lance sticks to just the Tour de France for the most part. I have to say though, Lance cleans all clocks when it comes to most phenominal rider. 3 types of cancer. I think Id still be worrying about my ammendments than winning the Tour..


Brian
 
I know for sure that Nelson Saldana is my FAVORITE cyclist of all time.

What? Don't know who he is? Never saw him race?
 
elmosferrari said:
3 types of cancer.
???
At least in his book, he only ever had testicular cancer. Yes he had secondaries to his brain & lungs but it is all the one cancer.
 
Lazy legs said:
Wonder what he would have done on a modern bike?

In many respects, that was an ultra modern bike. The Titanium and Magnesium components that my pal Pino built were bleeding edge.
Greg
 
Merckx of course

The question was asked several time in the past.

The guys did compete in all competitions in the season, and he won a lot. Check his record. Incredible.

I would like so much see a Tour the France with him. Is it possible to find some old record/movie of this.

It is said that when trying to win a 6th Tour de France he was hit by a spectator and had to take medimentation to reduce pain and it may have affect his performance. Would he have won 6 without it?

Maybe
 
keydates said:
Merckx said relatively recently that Lance was better than him.
Merckx offered two opinions, the first was that Lance was the better rider, and the second, which you'll find below, and which I think is more important: each generation has it's best cyclist, as determined by competition, and the rest is conjecture.
This is from ProCyling magazine:

A significant voice has been added to the perennial debate about the best rider in cycling history. Eddy Merckx, the man rated by many as the best of all time, has said that Lance Armstrong’s sixth Tour de France victory makes the American a better rider than the legendary Belgian.

Speaking at the Spanish cycling journalism awards in Madrid, where he was the guest of honour, Merckx said that he was happy to declare Armstrong the best of all time. “Armstrong is a better rider than me. The Tour is the most important race and Lance is the man who has won it most often. I’ve got no problem with the fact that he’s gone past what I achieved,” stated Merckx in an interview with AS.

“Cycling has different eras – Indurain, Hinault, Armstrong, mine… Each of us competed at a different time. The important thing is to be the best rider of your generation, and beyond that it’s never good to make comparisons.”
 
keydates said:
Merckx said relatively recently that Lance was better than him.
That praise was a qualified though. He mainly said that he was a better TdF rider. He has also said that if he focused solely on the TdF, that he would have won it many more times.
 
rich4everuh said:
Why Isnt Marco Pantani In The List???????????????????
I don't know if this is a joke or not this question...here is something that will leave you breathless and wonder why you ask the question....

For Eddy Merckx.....(See below for Pantani)
Palmarès
Championnat du monde route 3 (1967, 1971, 1974)

Tour d'Italie 5 (1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974)

Tour d'Espagne 1 (1973)

Tour de France 5 (1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974)

Gand-Wevelgem 3 (1967, 1970, 1973)

Amstel Gold Race 2 (1973, 1975)

GP des Nations 1 (1973)

Liège-Bastogne-Liège 5 (1969, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975)

Milan-San Remo 7 (1966, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1976)

Paris-Bruxelles 1 (1973)

Paris-Roubaix 3 (1968, 1970, 1973)

Tour des Flandres 2 (1969, 1975)

Tour de Lombardie 2 (1971, 1972)

Flèche Wallonne 3 (1967, 1970, 1972)

Tour de Catalogne 1 (1968)

Dauphiné Libéré 1 (1971)

GP du Midi Libre 1 (1971)

Paris-Nice 3 (1969, 1970, 1971)

Tour de Romandie 1 (1968)

Tour de Suisse 1 (1974)

Critérium des As 3 (1967, 1970, 1974)

Championnat de Belgique 1 (1970)

GP de l'Escaut-Schoten 1 (1972)

Flèche Brabançonne 1 (1972)

GP de Fourmies 1 (1973)

GP de Francfort 1 (1971)

Het Volk 2 (1971, 1973)

Montjuich 6 (1966, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975)

GP de Lugano 1 (1968)

Paris-Luxembourg 1 (1969)

Semaine Catalane 2 (1975, 1976)

Tour de Belgique 2 (1970, 1971)

Tour d'Emilie 1 (1972)

Tour du Piémont 1 (1972)

Tour Méditerranéen 1 (1977)

Trois Vallées Varésines 1 (1968)


And now for Pantani

Palmarès
Tour d'Italie 1 (1998)

Tour de France 1 (1998)

Tour de Murcie 1 (1999)


Do I have to add more to the fact???

Hope this help....Bye !!!
 

Similar threads